When Russia, a nation whose territory extends into the Arctic Circle, positions itself as part of the “Global South,” it reveals something fundamental about how international relations have evolved beyond simple geographic boundaries.
The term “Global South,” increasingly used by organizations and coalitions worldwide, has become less about hemispheres and more about challenging established power structures.
The “Global South” emerged as a successor to terms like “Third World” and “developing nations,” but it carries distinctly different implications.
While its predecessors focused primarily on economic development levels, the Global South represents a political identity one that is defined by shared opposition to the Western world rather than shared latitude.
This shift reflects a changing global landscape where traditional metrics of power and influence no longer tell the complete story.
Countries like China and Russia, despite their significant economic and military capabilities, position themselves as leaders of nations seeking alternatives to Western-dominated institutions and development models.
The inclusion of northern hemisphere powers in Global South coalitions might seem contradictory, but it reflects strategic political alignment.
Russia’s participation in organizations like BRICS alongside Brazil, India, China, and South Africa demonstrates how a major power works its ways in an increasingly de-Westernized world.
China’s role is particularly illustrative. As the world’s second-largest economy, China hardly fits traditional definitions of a developing nation. Yet it consistently presents itself as the champion of Global South interests, offering alternative development financing through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative and positioning the yuan as an alternative to dollar-dominated trade.
Global China is the goal, not equal participation in the BRICS as a responsible partner.
What unites these diverse nations isn’t geography but shared narratives of resistance to colonial or imperial dominance. While Russia was never formally colonized and itself was a colonizer, its Soviet experience and subsequent relationship with Western powers creates what it claims is a common ground with post-colonial nations. China similarly draws on its “century of humiliation” to connect with countries that experienced Western intervention.
This historical framing allows countries with vastly different current circumstances to find common cause in reshaping the global order away from the Western “rules-based order.”
Ironically, the globalization process which has so benefited China has been based precisely on this order, one which it is actively seeking to revise to its advantage.
Organizations identifying as Global South entities are effectively challenging the post-World War II international order.
The creation of alternative institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the New Development Bank, and various South-South cooperation frameworks represents concrete attempts to build parallel structures rather than reform existing ones.
The Global South concept also reflects the limitations of traditional North-South or East-West frameworks in describing today’s multipolar world.
Countries increasingly resist being pigeonholed into simple categories, instead choosing affiliations based on specific interests and values rather than geographic proximity or historical alliances.
This fluidity can be seen in how nations participate selectively in different coalitions. A country might align with Global South positions on trade and development while maintaining Western partnerships in security matters, reflecting the complex reality of modern statecraft.
As international relations become increasingly complex, the Global South identity represents an attempt to create solidarity among diverse nations based on shared aspirations for a more multipolar world rather than shared circumstances.
Whether this political identity can maintain coherence as member countries’ interests diverge remains an open question. The economic rise of key Global South nations may eventually challenge the very premise of their unified opposition to the existing order.
The debate over terminology reflects deeper questions about power, legitimacy, and representation in global governance.
As the world continues to evolve beyond simple geographic and economic categories, the Global South concept will likely continue adapting to serve the political needs of nations seeking alternatives to Western-dominated international systems.
In this context, Russia’s Arctic location becomes irrelevant to its Global South identity.
What matters is its commitment to challenging the Western world and building alternative international structures.
Geography, it seems, has taken a back seat to geopolitics in defining the world’s new coalitions.
And whether or not a member of the BRICS invades a sovereign country to include it in its empire seems to be also.